Thanks Boris. Just for the records, as I will not be at the telco next week (19th): I agree with your proposal of dumping them. Ivan Boris Motik wrote: > Hello, > > Recently, Jos de Bruijn has made a comment that the xsd:ENTITY, xsd:ID, and xsd:IDREF datatypes are not recommended for use in RDF > and OWL 1. Therefore, he asked us why we included these datatypes into OWL 2. His original e-mail is here: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2008Oct/0000.html > > I looked into this and here are my findings. The xsd:ENTITY datatype has been derived from xsd:NCName by placing a rather strange > restriction on its value space: > > The value space of ENTITY is scoped to a specific instance document. > > This probably means you cannot define the value space globally, but need to somehow associate it with the document where xsd:ENTITY > is being used. This is clearly quite complex and has not been intended in my original definition of the OWL 2 datatype map. > > The xsd:ID and xsd:IDREF datatypes exhibit no such problems: their value space is exactly the same as for xsd:NCName. Therefore, I > am not really sure why RDF and OWL 1 warned against their usage. > > > Either, I believe that the simplest way to address Jos's comment is to delete all three datatypes from the rdf:text and OWL 2 > specifications. Since neither of these datatypes provides us with something more than xsd:NCName, we are not really losing any > expressivity here. > > Regards, > > Boris > > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 14 November 2008 11:52:23 GMT